'Lessons'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
But, Wolfram, if you change B to between 0 and 10, then, if you've voted NO for a) and vote 0 for b) then you've basically removed yourself from the decision if A passes despite your no vote, don't you?
You're right assuming we're averaging the numbers in B, but if we're just collecting the numbers and figuring out which number got the most votes, than all the no votes in a) could instead vote 0 in b) and you wouldn't need an a) question.
I just realized that no where in there did it say we were averaging: So here is a new and improved:
A new version:
ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD
Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?
A yes vote on this Item means you would like a new thread, that will be solely dedicated to formal discussion of future items put forward for voting. This thread will only be open during the designated days of formal discussion.
A no vote means you do not want a new thread. (Presumably in this case, all discussion will take place in Bureaucracy.)
----------------
ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION
Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?
A yes vote on this item means that you would like to end all discussion on a given item when voting starts.
A no vote means you would like to continue discussion through the voting period.
----------------
ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT
How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Do votes of "no preference" count toward this?
For the first question, put a number between 2 and 100 into this box, please: [ ] An AVERAGE (rounded to the nearest whole number) of these numbers will be used to determine the voter turnout
For the second part, it's a simple yes or no.
If you vote yes, you would allow people to register their vote as an "no preference" -- that is, with no preference for either choice -- and that vote would count toward the minimum number
If you vote no, you want only votes that prefer one option to count toward the minimum.
----------------
ITEM 4: SECONDS
a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote?
b) Please choose a minimum number of people who have to agree with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion Put a number between 1 and 10 into this box, please: [ ]
You may answer this question even if you choose to vote no to proposal (a)
An AVERAGE of these numbers (rounded to the nearest whole number) will be used to determine the number of people needed to second. [ ]
You're right assuming we're averaging the numbers in B, but if we're just collecting the numbers and figuring out which number got the most votes, than all the no votes in a) could instead vote 0 in b) and you wouldn't need an a) question.
But we're not just doing that. If seconds gets voted down in question a, it doesn't matter what average question b comes up with. Whether or not we do anything with the average is a separate issue than what the average is.
I don't think we can round to the nearest 5 if the choices are only 1-10. That really only gives us the choices of 1 (?), 5 and 10. I'm thinking just the average would be better, here.
I don't think we can round to the nearest 5 if the choices are only 1-10. That really only gives us the choices of 1 (?), 5 and 10. I'm thinking just the average would be better, here.
Exactly.
OK-- I think that is my fault. We talked about the averaging by rounding to 5 for MVP (or whatever) and I just added it to the lower one without thinking.
I agree with Cindy's point (also Ple's earlier point about statistical analysis) that it would be better to find a number which seemed useful or relevant or based in some percentage of the population (however we figured that) rather than arbitrary to set standards like MVT or Seconds.
Let's not forget the obvious fact, that if we pick a set number based upon who turned up in the two most recent votes, we're presuming that the population will remain stable here and that the number of active posters will remain stable.
That has not been the case historically. We have grown and grown.
If we set the MVT number at 50, and then we double in size with active posters that means that instead of rougly half the people being needed to make a change, only a quarter of them would. Very different dynamic.
If we could find a number derived out of active posters or active posters plus active lurkers (we could ask for a show of hands among lurkers? Or, as Am-Chau suggested, look at how many people log in daily or weekly if that's possible?) then we would know the principle by which we had gotten the number, and could adjust easily with fluctuations in active population.
Sorry if I'm introducing this notion too late into the discussion, but I do think it would be wiser to presume that the number of posters won't remain static.
If we could find a number derived out of active posters or active posters plus active lurkers (we could ask for a show of hands among lurkers? Or, as Am-Chau suggested, look at how many people log in daily or weekly if that's possible?) then we would know the principle by which we had gotten the number, and could adjust easily with fluctuations in active population.
What happened to "keep it simple"? ;)
Seriously, as several folks have pointed out, we can alway revisit if it looks like proposals are moving through at too fast or too slow a pace. I think that for now, a range of 2 to 100 is fine.
What happened to "keep it simple"? ;)
I'm also willing to use the recent voter turnout as a handy benchmark and work from that. Because, if the active population does change radically, then we could reconsider the MVT.
Mostly, I want to move forward on this vote. I want to quit talking about voting, and I want to get the results from the vote and start using them.
Again, my biggest impulse is to try things out and see what works. I am less interested now in my own opinion, and much more interested in what the vote will tell us about the community's opinion. That's what I want. Not my way, but the way that works for the most people.
On item 2: Should we add to the 'no' answer something regarding the fact that after the vote, discussion will be suspended for the next six months, regardless of the result? Because right now it reads simply and clearly, but perhaps like we'll just go right on talking about the issue and never desist.
On item 3: How will rounding be handled? If the mean ends up 22, will we round down to 20, but if it is 23 will we round up to 25?